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].
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.
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.
Yes, this is a key thing to clarify anytime these conversations take place.
The reason we want to preserve the environment, biodiversity, all that jazz is FOR US. It’s for our own comfort and survival that we should care about not polluting, stopping climate change, etc.
The planet and life on it will be just fine, it made it through many extinction events and will make it through many more.
It's true, but I'm not sure it's some great "hack" to get people to start caring. You have to remember many people can't even make decision that will benefit themselves even a few short hours later (see delayed gratification).
> It's true, but I'm not sure it's some great "hack" to get people to start caring.
Ha. I actually think it's going to make people potentially care even less? "Why would I need to preserve anything if nature and life is going to be fine no matter what?"
Some even argue to better speed it up, so we don't destroy too many other species in our own downfall.
We also tend to congregate in high concentrations, since we have communication (and now social media!) to show all the best places. If everyone was dispersed camping on BLM land, somehow equally distributed regardless of distance from the road, it would probably be less of a problem, but when everyone wants to do ~the same extra special hikes and camp in the sameish spots, the concentration would get pretty high.
Also, animal shit can be bad for the local environment. There's a lovely lake near us, and a nice big tree with a sign on it from the municipal parks department saying "Cormorants are using this tree to nest. Eventually, their droppings with kill the tree."
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".
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.
I don't think it is particularly. I personally wonder why all that matter could not be managed by small systems that would process the solid waste into usable compost. Given enough time, waste would break down to pretty inert plant food. This must have been the common practise historically too.
Historically it was also common practise to die from diseases spread through fecal matter.
Or if not death, bad outcomes like hookworms, which were common in the american south and literally caused people to be stupid. They mostly went away when people stopped pooping in the woods.
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.
Dumping ANY manure into a body of water causes algal blooms. Fecal matter concentrates nutrients. This has happened with modern megafarms, when flooding overflows their manure pits.
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.
> 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 went on a multi-day boating trip down the Orange River between South Africa and Namibia. They told us very explicitly how and where to defecate. Sufficiently far from the river, and we were to take three things: a spade, toilet paper and a lighter. Dig hole, shit in hole, wipe, burn the toilet paper, fill in the hole.
I went hiking in the Fish River canyon "just" upstream from where your river boating excursion took place.
5 days, 90km and zero facilities. Pristine nature despite it being very popular. Same story as yours: non negotiable items in your already overweight pack is a shovel, TP and a lighter/matches. You had to burn the TP and bury your logs.
Only difference is in the canyon you cant really get far away from the river.
I rather enjoyed the burning ritual afterwards. Somehow it felt like it cleansed my soul, after slogging 25km over round loose stones and soft sand carrying 20kg on my back. It was the little things that made that experience beautiful.
In super dry climates, things don't break down the way you would expect it to elsewhere. It's the same reason why many interesting archeological findings like clothing items often come out of Africa. They've just been sitting there in the desert for thousands of years, it's too dry for anything besides sun damage to happen.
Apparently even if buried the paper would just sit there until the next flood then they'd find it all caught up in the trees downstream. Burning is a sure way to leave no trace.
For real. We live and work in the neighborhood and I've come to the conclusion that putting 5 gallon buckets out with toilet seat lids on them chained to the trash cans so they throw the full ones away when they collect the trash would be better than what is going on now.
Myself and friends use dog poo bags, I'm unsure of their techniques but I tear one open and place on ground to give a decent target, pop used paper on my feces then pickup by the corners to drop it all in another bag. Tie it up then drop it inside a empty large foil crisp packet to help avoid piercing. It can then easily be carried out with any other rubbish
I have a hard time believing wrapping up your poop in 2 factory produced dog bags and then a non biodegradable chip bag that will end up in a landfill is better for the environment than just digging a hole.
Best thing I can imagine, especially if you’re car camping and have the room is to have a post hole digger and then dig a hole 2 foot down in less than a minute, poop in it and then cover it up.
The idea is to sacrifice one part of the environment (municipal landfill and surrounding land) in order to have everything else reasonably clean and beautiful.
(Alternative being a thin layer of waste and garbage spread all over the planet. First World did that until 1970s; many poor countries still do it. Looks shabby and ugly.)
- In popular camping/hiking areas, there's just too much of it.
- In dry areas it can take decades to break down.
- In rocky areas it's really hard to bury it deep enough (and so people often don't).
- In some areas (like the deserts of the southwestern U.S.) the ground is really fragile and shouldn't be disturbed. Cryptobiotic soil can take decades or centuries to regrow.
- People often don't move far enough away from camp sites / trails / waterways before they dig a hole.
And even in areas where it's easy to dig, the soil is moist enough to it break down, and it's easy to move far enough from sensitive areas, people are just lazy and often don't dig holes that are deep enough or far enough away.
If people were super conscientious (maybe it works great in Japan?) and/or only did low density camping/hiking, it might not be a problem—and indeed in many areas it isn't really a problem. But I've also been to campsites where if you take 20 steps from the trail you can see 5 or 10 places with TP peeking out from the soil within a small radius—and who knows how many more that you can't see.
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).
I'm not a dog person but I think that one is totally explainable: if you're walking your dog in the neighborhood and it just did its business on the side walk, sharp eyes will be watching you to make sure you pick up after Milo or Daisy.
But who likes to walk around with a bag of fresh dog goodies in their hand? So it seems to be only natural that once out of sight enough, mommy is just gonna drop that gift bag at the nearest occasion.
Probably correct. I was coming out of my house and saw a lady about 7-8 houses away. Her dog was just finishing up and then she looked around. When she saw me, she dipped into her pocket for a bag. It was absolutely hilarious. She probably dropped it somewhere on the way home.
My approach is to make sure to buy good quality waste bags, double bag it (or even triple bag it) and then either carry it in my pocket or in a side pocket of a pack and then dispose sensibly when you have an opportunity.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
This spent 17 hours on HN's front page (and is only just off it, I think):
Lewis and Clark marked their trail with laxatives - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45087815 - Aug 2025 (78 comments)
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...
Another good resource is here: https://andrewskurka.com/how-to-poop-in-the-outdoors-part-1-...
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.
Why is human fecal matter worse for the environment than animal fecal matter?
Something in our diets?
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.
Yes, this is a key thing to clarify anytime these conversations take place.
The reason we want to preserve the environment, biodiversity, all that jazz is FOR US. It’s for our own comfort and survival that we should care about not polluting, stopping climate change, etc.
The planet and life on it will be just fine, it made it through many extinction events and will make it through many more.
Wow, that is very insightful - all these years hearing and thinking about environment problems and I’d never looked at it that way.
But everyone should look at it that way.
It's true, but I'm not sure it's some great "hack" to get people to start caring. You have to remember many people can't even make decision that will benefit themselves even a few short hours later (see delayed gratification).
> It's true, but I'm not sure it's some great "hack" to get people to start caring.
Ha. I actually think it's going to make people potentially care even less? "Why would I need to preserve anything if nature and life is going to be fine no matter what?"
Some even argue to better speed it up, so we don't destroy too many other species in our own downfall.
We also tend to congregate in high concentrations, since we have communication (and now social media!) to show all the best places. If everyone was dispersed camping on BLM land, somehow equally distributed regardless of distance from the road, it would probably be less of a problem, but when everyone wants to do ~the same extra special hikes and camp in the sameish spots, the concentration would get pretty high.
Also, animal shit can be bad for the local environment. There's a lovely lake near us, and a nice big tree with a sign on it from the municipal parks department saying "Cormorants are using this tree to nest. Eventually, their droppings with kill the tree."
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".
[dead]
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.
I don't think it is particularly. I personally wonder why all that matter could not be managed by small systems that would process the solid waste into usable compost. Given enough time, waste would break down to pretty inert plant food. This must have been the common practise historically too.
Historically it was also common practise to die from diseases spread through fecal matter.
Or if not death, bad outcomes like hookworms, which were common in the american south and literally caused people to be stupid. They mostly went away when people stopped pooping in the woods.
Of course, it is all a matter of concentration.
This was part of the justification for the southern sodomy laws.
If one person poops in the river, it's most likely fine.
If 1000 people poop in the river, it's contaminated for everyone downstream.
You can be infected by what infected another human. Cross species contamination is less likely.
Also what is left is what survives our digestive system. Or is adapted in it, but can thrive in wrong part.
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.
Dumping ANY manure into a body of water causes algal blooms. Fecal matter concentrates nutrients. This has happened with modern megafarms, when flooding overflows their manure pits.
Wouldn't be the first time humans tried to use human manure as fertilizer. It always ended quite shitty (for humans).
And human urine
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.
> 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
[dead]
I went on a multi-day boating trip down the Orange River between South Africa and Namibia. They told us very explicitly how and where to defecate. Sufficiently far from the river, and we were to take three things: a spade, toilet paper and a lighter. Dig hole, shit in hole, wipe, burn the toilet paper, fill in the hole.
I went hiking in the Fish River canyon "just" upstream from where your river boating excursion took place.
5 days, 90km and zero facilities. Pristine nature despite it being very popular. Same story as yours: non negotiable items in your already overweight pack is a shovel, TP and a lighter/matches. You had to burn the TP and bury your logs.
Only difference is in the canyon you cant really get far away from the river.
I rather enjoyed the burning ritual afterwards. Somehow it felt like it cleansed my soul, after slogging 25km over round loose stones and soft sand carrying 20kg on my back. It was the little things that made that experience beautiful.
Why burn the toilet paper ?
In super dry climates, things don't break down the way you would expect it to elsewhere. It's the same reason why many interesting archeological findings like clothing items often come out of Africa. They've just been sitting there in the desert for thousands of years, it's too dry for anything besides sun damage to happen.
The paper takes more time to degrade into soil. Ashes basically are soil.
Apparently even if buried the paper would just sit there until the next flood then they'd find it all caught up in the trees downstream. Burning is a sure way to leave no trace.
This needs to be printed onto leaflets and dropped over SoMa.
For real. We live and work in the neighborhood and I've come to the conclusion that putting 5 gallon buckets out with toilet seat lids on them chained to the trash cans so they throw the full ones away when they collect the trash would be better than what is going on now.
Print it on the toilet paper, effect would be the same.
Myself and friends use dog poo bags, I'm unsure of their techniques but I tear one open and place on ground to give a decent target, pop used paper on my feces then pickup by the corners to drop it all in another bag. Tie it up then drop it inside a empty large foil crisp packet to help avoid piercing. It can then easily be carried out with any other rubbish
I have a hard time believing wrapping up your poop in 2 factory produced dog bags and then a non biodegradable chip bag that will end up in a landfill is better for the environment than just digging a hole.
Best thing I can imagine, especially if you’re car camping and have the room is to have a post hole digger and then dig a hole 2 foot down in less than a minute, poop in it and then cover it up.
The idea is to sacrifice one part of the environment (municipal landfill and surrounding land) in order to have everything else reasonably clean and beautiful.
(Alternative being a thin layer of waste and garbage spread all over the planet. First World did that until 1970s; many poor countries still do it. Looks shabby and ugly.)
How does buried poop not keep things beautiful?
Lots of ways:
- In popular camping/hiking areas, there's just too much of it.
- In dry areas it can take decades to break down.
- In rocky areas it's really hard to bury it deep enough (and so people often don't).
- In some areas (like the deserts of the southwestern U.S.) the ground is really fragile and shouldn't be disturbed. Cryptobiotic soil can take decades or centuries to regrow.
- People often don't move far enough away from camp sites / trails / waterways before they dig a hole.
And even in areas where it's easy to dig, the soil is moist enough to it break down, and it's easy to move far enough from sensitive areas, people are just lazy and often don't dig holes that are deep enough or far enough away.
If people were super conscientious (maybe it works great in Japan?) and/or only did low density camping/hiking, it might not be a problem—and indeed in many areas it isn't really a problem. But I've also been to campsites where if you take 20 steps from the trail you can see 5 or 10 places with TP peeking out from the soil within a small radius—and who knows how many more that you can't see.
I am pretty sure that elaborate process is the commenter taking the piss.
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).
I feel the same about dog owners who bag their dog’s crap and then leave the bag in the middle of the sidewalk.
I'm not a dog person but I think that one is totally explainable: if you're walking your dog in the neighborhood and it just did its business on the side walk, sharp eyes will be watching you to make sure you pick up after Milo or Daisy.
But who likes to walk around with a bag of fresh dog goodies in their hand? So it seems to be only natural that once out of sight enough, mommy is just gonna drop that gift bag at the nearest occasion.
Probably correct. I was coming out of my house and saw a lady about 7-8 houses away. Her dog was just finishing up and then she looked around. When she saw me, she dipped into her pocket for a bag. It was absolutely hilarious. She probably dropped it somewhere on the way home.
My approach is to make sure to buy good quality waste bags, double bag it (or even triple bag it) and then either carry it in my pocket or in a side pocket of a pack and then dispose sensibly when you have an opportunity.
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.
> Why bag it and then just throw it right on the ground? That’s almost worse.
It is worse, no almost about it.
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.
[dead]
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
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
Well, at least “smearing” isn’t a default choice anymore
> 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".
I mean "Norway" is pretty clearly an anglicisation of Norge, much as Sagarmatha is of सगरमाथा.
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
[flagged]