This is the campsite on Spring Island in the Mission Group off Kyuquot Sound, an exceptionally beautiful location. Should it also be "best practice" to use this beach as a toilet? BCMT is advocating just that very thing, but the author of this post disagrees, and advocates a more environmentally friendly option.
By John Kimantas
A few years back I found myself heading up a team of people at BC Marine Trails charged with creating a Code of Conduct for kayakers while out on the British Columbia coast. The reason for creating the Code was the unfortunate conclusion that the Leave No Trace principles (those generally accepted for environmentally-friendly backcountry recreation) are not completely transferable to the BC coast, and in many cases if practiced as per the LNT instructions are harmful and impactful. That required a new set of principles
The mission of the BCMT Code of Conduct was to find scientifically supportable practices that, if followed, would minimize both individual and cumulative damage to the environment (and First Nations values) while out on kayaking trips.
I am going to emphasize the concept of scientifically supportable practices, as I believe it is important to distinguish between actual cause-and-effect and what might generally be believed. For that I'll reference one of my all-time favourite misplaced beliefs and how harmful such can be: the case of killer whales in Campbell River. The orcas were being blamed by sports fishermen for the decline in salmon in the area, and this belief was so entrenched that machine guns were placed at Seymour Narrows in 1961 to kill transiting killer whales to put an end to their destructive dietary habits and to rid the world of this destructive species. Never mind the lack of information about the impact of killer whales on salmon populations. It was the belief that mounted the guns, not facts.
How perception has changed! Thankfully. The trick for the BCMT Code of Conduct team was to devise a Code free of any such misconceptions, even if highly popular and widely believed. That meant finding solutions that were supportable by evidence, not conception alone.
One of the subjects was, as you can imagine, what to do with human waste while out on a kayaking trip in the absence of an outhouse. There were (and are) only so many options, and in the end we concluded the following was the best policy (acknowledging there were conflicting views even upon finalizing this, and how the wording is not perfect by any stretch):
"If a toilet is unavailable, no human waste should be left on site, including buried waste. Best practice is to pack it out and discharge from paddlecraft mid-channel. Alternatively, ensure tidal flush sweeps it out to sea. Use tidal flush only in locations where shellfish won't be contaminated."
That has since changed (without my involvement) to the following:
"When a toilet is unavailable, best practice is to dispose [of] all human waste below the high tide line and ensure tidal flush sweeps it out to sea. Alternatively, where shellfish will be contaminated, pack out or discharge waste mid channel."
I don't support that change, and here is why. And more importantly, here's what people should consider when having to poop while out kayaking.
The first problem, when the Code was first being compiled, was coming up with a short one-answer-fits-all policy. There are many types of campsites and situations on the coast, meaning the ideal solution at one site might not work at another. The concept of best practice requires consideration of the following:
- Congestion
- Beach type (rock or sand)
- Beach size
- Proximity to other uses/populations
- Access to the upland
- The type of land cover
As the guy heading up the research, it was quickly apparent the need for the following had to be central to this part of the Code:
"No human waste should be left on site."
The reason for this is based on where the science led: there was no solution where disposal of waste at a kayaking campsite could be considered environmentally friendly. This means your waste should be packed out as a best practice. For that, the Code expanded with this detail:
"The only way to completely avoid contamination where toilets are not available is by packing out human waste. Many different methods are now commercially available for this purpose. These types of methods represent the strongest outdoor ethic."
This, naturally, got a lot of negative views. Resistance was high to the concept of packing out poop. The resistance was largely over the concept of taking along poop on your trip. I had an analogy for this disdain: initial resistance to the poop and scoop bylaw when the idea of picking up doggy poop was first floated in New York City in the 1970s. The resistance was huge. People hated the idea of having to deal with the poop and carry it away.
How perceptions have changed! Using a doggy bag and carrying the poop is generally accepted practice now across the world (thanks to New York City!) and the disdain has now switched to dog owners who don't take responsibility for their dog's poop.
My hope was the same change in ethic would take place over time when it came to kayak camping: the disdain would be for people who pooped at the campsite and left it behind, and carrying it away would become as much of a non-issue as carrying around a bag of doggy poop.
Clearly BCMT has rethought that for reasons unexplained, and even gone a step further by redefining what is best practice:
"Best practice is to dispose [of] all human waste below the high tide line and ensure tidal flush sweeps it out to sea."
It is not best practice, or at least I know of no evidence that points to that being the case. The flaw is the impracticality of the detail: "ensure tidal flush sweeps it out to sea."
When I started kayaking trips before the turn of the last century, disposal on beaches was common practice, though I'm not sure anyone considered it a best practice, just a necessity. The practice went like this. Get a clamshell or stick, dig a small pit below the high tide line, poop in it, refill the hole when done, then top with the clamshell or stick, and finally spike the location with a stick so people are aware of the location. Best practice was definitely to burn the toilet paper, though it is questionable how many people actually did that.
(As an aside, I do recall a habit, when the beach was either congested or not suitable, people would scramble over the nearby rocks to adjacent areas as far as necessary to a private location, do their business then cover it over with wood or a rock until it could be washed away without need for a pit. The general rule of thumb was don't ask, don't tell. You just did what you had to do in the situation and it was never really discussed.)
So you have dug a hole on the beach and covered it over. Now what? The BCMT Code, as edited, implies it can be carried away. My experience differs. The key aspect was to dig a deep enough pit to hide all evidence. Though never discussed that I can recall, I tend to believe the general wisdom was the poop would slowly return to the environment by leaching when the tide covered it over. For that reason there was a sub-directive: do your business upstream from the prevailing current.
How BCMT envisions the business being swept out to sea is beyond me. I suppose if the pit is not deep and the wave and surf action is substantial, it could be unburied quickly enough. I am not sure you want that, because as the tide is rising when this interaction takes place, the poop is more likely to be washed up than down. I don't know watching poop getting washed up and down your beach with the waves could be considered anywhere near best practice.
So yuck. Is my thought.
There are other problems with this method. Here are the top issues.
The lower the tide, generally the lower the quality of the beach. Most loose sediment such as small pebbles and sand suitable for a small pit will be at the highest tide level, with the beach becoming increasingly rocky the lower the level. This means burying waste may only be possible at the highest tide levels, and may well be impossible at lower tide levels, if at all on certain beaches.
Social considerations. Even if the beach is ideal, and expansive, dropping your drawers and squatting when within eyesight of other campsites is a deterrent to this type of disposal. For modesty, people may look to the upland, which is environmentally much worse.
Beach size. Quite often a beach is only as large as the campsite. This means you will forced to bury your waste where you will be using the beach for launching and landing, rinsing dishes, and so on.
Beach location. It's no surprise that even on the open ocean, the best kayaking campsite are in secluded bays and sheltered areas with minimal surf. There will be no force to sweep anything. Whatever is buried on the beach will be there for a while. (Footnote: if anyone wants to test the time it takes to clear buried waste on a beach, an experiment with a can of chili or some such would be worthwhile. Please share the results if you do.)
Other conflicting uses. A primary consideration is shellfish contamination. Couple this with First Nations considerations, and you end up with this protocol requested by the Kyuquot-Checleset First Nation for visitors to their traditional lands:
"If you are camping, where possible, we ask that you dig a hole in the forest for your human waste. Do not defecate in inter-tidal areas that contain shellfish, as this contaminates our shellfish beds."
While this makes intertidal defecation situationally acceptable, it puts the onus on the visitor to determine where shellfish beds are and what proximity may lead to contamination. I suggest the inexact and subjective nature of this directive makes it difficult to use as a rule. Additionally, it suggests shellfish contamination is the only consideration concerning intertidal disposal. It is not.
The directive also indicates catholes are an option. In consideration of that, here is a determination of the original BCMT Code of Conduct team:
Catholes don't work in the coastal environment.
The idea is dig a hole and when done cover it over. This requires soil. If you have spent much time on the BC coast, you will know there are very few coastal environments that have accessible soil to make this possible. Most often the upland is inaccessible for any great distance, and even if you can access it, the substrate is most often either rock, rocky and/or filled over with dead fill of loose leaves, twigs, moss and debris in place of soil, where any actual dirt is far below and possibly inaccessible under this thick surface cover.
Given the lack of accessible upland, the option is to push through to find a spot. If used even irregularly as a campsite, this means a trail will slowly be created, which creates another issue. It will be used as a trail (or at least the hope of one), bringing foot traffic to the poop spot. Evidence of use as a toilet will require more trampling to new areas to find a fresh location to poop, and this will expand the campsite's footprint, and not in a good way. Oh, and couple this with foraging for firewood. That's another Code directive: get your wood from the beach, don't denude the upland. But I digress...
The worst case for catholes is not making a cathole at all, which is common practice. Just find a secluded location then leave when done. Given the lack of upland access, rivulets, creeks and streams may be used. You can imagine the result. I recall staying at a national park campsite along the West Coast Trail where the park steward was warning campers not to use the water from the campsite stream because somebody had pooped upcreek. I remember discovering the same at Keeha Bay, where someone's behaviour meant a psychological obstacle more than any health risk: you can purify the water if you want, but do you really want to drink shitwater?
(As a side note, if you bring along a commercial solution for packing out waste, finding any accessible upland location for doing your business is just fine, so long as you minimize trampling/erosion and so on.)
And the last disposal option to discuss:
"Best practice is to pack it out and discharge from paddlecraft mid-channel."
This is a modification of the idea of packing it out, instead disposing of it within the ocean rather than taking it home. This was in the original Code, and it is an aspect I agreed to in the end, reluctantly, as it was pushed mainly by one strong voice on the team, and backed by the logic it is acceptable for boating and boaters, and so follows a pre-existing environmentally supported guideline.
(As far as objections to a burial at sea, the risk is fecal coliform, a bacteria from intestines and so may be a risk to swimming or drinking. Considering the dilution, the risk is greatest in enclosed coves, etc., where people may swim. Dilution in a tidal channel or the open ocean diminishes the risk, making contamination an unlikely consideration. Contamination is a far greater risk from vessels emptying large holding tanks.)
As far as a burial at sea, why not just carry it out instead of the additional hassle of a potentially complicated and messy transit and disposal? Do this if you're so inclined, but I can't recommend it as I can't visualize doing it successfully. Maybe the advocate at BCMT can explain it somehow.
The inevitable conclusion:
I recall visiting Curme Islands in Desolation Sound Provincial Park before they rejigged the setup and added outhouses. At the end of the summer the island was a disaster. Also, I recall other campsites at the end of summer where the upland was a sea of disposed toilet paper. Truly disgusting. I actually stopped going to popular campsites later in the summer for this very reason. The potential for a disaster was high.
The end result for the initial BCMT Code of Conduct team was the inevitable conclusion only a pack-it-out policy works. Whole commercial systems are designed to support this, making it possible, simple and hygienic. It is indeed the best answer and possibly the only answer at a good majority of coastal campsites lacking a toilet. It is not an unreasonable ask to have kayakers prepared for this eventuality by packing appropriate toiletry products as a matter of course, and BCMT could take the lead on changing the culture to make this the norm.
Therefore I have to express my huge disappointment with BCMT for the unsupported claim that beach disposal is "best practice." That undercuts the whole premise of the exercise, which was not to find the easiest answer, but to change the public perception when necessary to correct bad behaviour.
Hopefully they will revisit this again at some point in the near future.
John Kimantas is owner-operator of Wild Coast Publishing and author of several guide books, has acted as a consultant on several recreation initiatives and was contracted by BCMT to head the team that created the initial Code of Conduct. His involvement with the Code ended with the conclusions of that contract.