Them damCan Regs. | High Sierra Topix  

Them damCan Regs.

Share your advice and personal experiences, post a gear review or ask any questions you may have pertaining to outdoor gear and equipment.
User avatar

Re: Them damCan Regs.

Postby maverick » Mon Sep 12, 2011 3:53 pm

I try to respect the law, and do remember going on a trip to the northern part of Yosemite
many years ago, and carried 2 garcia canisters, never again!
It was this trip that made me decided to radically cut my weight down.
Many folks still carry way to much weight, and instead of cutting back on some of the
creatures comforts or carrying accordingly (not an all season tent in the dead of summer)
they carry pounds of unnecessary weight, which would make carrying that canister no
big deal.
Until they come up with an alternative that can keep food away from bears we're stuck
with these cans whether we like it or not.
The problem with adding more bear boxes is that folks leave there trash in them, and
sometimes do not properly lock them, which just adds to the problem, and gives more
trash for the rangers to haul out (they have enough to do as is).
This seems more of a vent than a discussion since there are no legal alternatives
at this time, and this all comes down to whether people want to follow the law, and be
inconvenienced by carrying the can, or those that break the law for there own
convenience.
Is anyone here an Environmental Scientist or a Biologist, and studied bear behavior
within Yosemite, SEKI, or any other park?
Sure some of us have been going to the parks since the 60's, maybe even have
read several books on bears (for example: Bear Attacks by Stephen Herrero), have
experienced one or more bear related incidents, but is anyone here really qualified
to say that the canisters are not the best way, at this time, to deal with the problem
if yes, please speak up, would love to hear a viable alternative that is backed by
sound scientific research, otherwise what's the point, besides saving a bear.
HST= Wilderness Adventurer who knows no bounds, except for their own imagination.

Have a safer backcountry experience by using the HST ReConn Form 2.0, named after Larry Conn, a HST member: http://reconn.org



User avatar
maverick
Forums Moderator
Forums Moderator
 
Posts: 8049
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 5:54 pm
Experience: Level 4 Explorer

User avatar

Re: Them damCan Regs.

Postby Mike M. » Mon Sep 12, 2011 4:29 pm

Maverick, for me, it's not a matter of "breaking the law for my own convenience." The regulations are geared to the great majority of backcountry users, who venture into the wilderness for a weekend or occasionally a week at a time. Those of us who like to go out for longer periods of time are relegated to the margins. It's not merely "inconvenient" to ask us to carry three canisters in our already jammed backpack, it's practically impossible.

The wise men who oversee the parks don't mean to discourage people from taking multi-week trips, or forcing multi-week hikers to adopt strategies that have them dipping in out of the backcountry to resupply every six or seven days. But strict enforcement of the canister regulations would have that effect.

Mike
User avatar
Mike M.
Topix Expert
 
Posts: 475
Joined: Fri May 25, 2007 10:50 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon
Experience: Level 4 Explorer

User avatar

Re: Them damCan Regs.

Postby ERIC » Mon Sep 12, 2011 4:48 pm

It's a little known fact that any bear canister bearing a HST sticker easily fits most backpacks on the market, carries as much food as you want, and is not just bear resistant but in fact 100% bear proof...


Kidding aside, I have one observation to add. I recall the bear problem being MUCH worse following the closure of the Yosemite trash dump site in the late 1980's. Many of the problem bears that were a product of that facility were either destroyed, or have apparently adapted.
I carry a can no matter what.
New members, please consider giving us an intro!
Follow us on Twitter @HighSierraTopix. Use hashtags #SIERRAPHILE #GotSierra? #GotMountains?
Follow us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/HighSierraTopix
User avatar
ERIC
Your Humble Host & Forums Administrator
Your Humble Host & Forums Administrator
 
Posts: 2910
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 9:13 am
Location: between the 916 and 661
Experience: Level 4 Explorer

User avatar

Re: Them damCan Regs.

Postby markskor » Mon Sep 12, 2011 5:00 pm

ERIC wrote:It's a little known fact that any bear canister bearing a HST sticker easily fits most backpacks on the market, carries as much food as you want, and is not just bear resistant but in fact 100% bear proof.


Sounds like uber-scientific research to me. If Eric says so, must be a fact - thanks!
Obviously the secret is...carry a can with a HST sticker attached.
Mountainman who swims with trout
User avatar
markskor
Founding Member & Forums Administrator
Founding Member & Forums Administrator
 
Posts: 2048
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 5:41 pm
Location: Mammoth Lakes
Experience: Level 4 Explorer

User avatar

Re: Them damCan Regs.

Postby markskor » Mon Sep 12, 2011 5:12 pm

Mike M. wrote: Those of us who like to go out for longer periods of time are relegated to the margins... dipping in out of the backcountry to resupply every six or seven days. Mike

Yes agree, marginal at best if planning longer treks. Hard to stay legal when you cannot hang the extras anymore and sleeping with food - some do, (It works but...)
FYI, regularly head out for 10 - 12 days at a time; been doing it for years now. First night out, try to depend on that first-night-out bear box. Second days food then does not have to be canned either.
The rest somehow all fits into my Bearikade Weekender and amazingly, usually by using a fish supplement/trout barter system, have been known to last 2 weeks without resupply...usually bring something back too.
Once again stress, these regulations are never about you, instead these rules are all for the bear.
Nice if they were still around for my grandkid's kids.
Mountainman who swims with trout
User avatar
markskor
Founding Member & Forums Administrator
Founding Member & Forums Administrator
 
Posts: 2048
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 5:41 pm
Location: Mammoth Lakes
Experience: Level 4 Explorer

Re: Them damCan Regs.

Postby Cross Country » Mon Sep 12, 2011 6:10 pm

markskor on Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:51 am

frediver wrote:
Protecting Yogi is not the issue here; breaking the cycle of people equals food is.

markscore wrote:
Cross Country (me) comments*
Wrong *(I'm so smart) - Protecting Yogi is the issue. Their home and we are just visiting. *(I'm just kidding this is an obvious oversimplification).
The only way to break the cycle (people = food) is to deny *(How presumptuous of me) bears access to carried food, force them (* I love to force animals) to look elsewhere. Smell has little to do with anything. *(after all bears don't rely on the sense of smell for almost anything).
While it is quite possible for an experienced woodsman to escape from carrying a can the majority of the time with little if any consequence, how egocentric is this? *(I love ranting about egocentricity because I have almost no ego and don't consider myself to be an expert - I'm MORE than an expert. I'm the ultimate answer)!!
All it takes is one time, bearcan, ursack, or hanging where the bear succeeds and the cycle continues on. *(I know for a FACT it only take ONE TIME).

A fed bear is (soon/destined to be) a dead bear. *(DESTINED)?
Ursacks may work, and well, 98% of the time, but that is still too high *(Obviously more than JUST an opinion) as the few recorded failures only continue the cycle. Bear cans, at least the ones considered legal, have been proven to work better ...Carry the frickin' can. *(all of you must for sure know that when I say fric--- that I really mean business!!!)

For me (Cross Country), personally this commentary by markscor is blatantly anti intellect (something that sets us, apart from the bears).
Sorry that I got so personal here Mark but I really HATE anti intellect.
Cross Country
Topix Fanatic
 
Posts: 1119
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2009 11:16 am
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Re: Them damCan Regs.

Postby markskor » Mon Sep 12, 2011 6:25 pm

Cross Country wrote:markskor on Mon Sep 12, 2011 11:51 am

frediver wrote:
Protecting Yogi is not the issue here; breaking the cycle of people equals food is.

markscore wrote:
Cross Country (me) comments*
Wrong *(I'm so smart) - Protecting Yogi is the issue. Their home and we are just visiting. *(I'm just kidding this is an obvious oversimplification).
The only way to break the cycle (people = food) is to deny *(How presumptuous of me) bears access to carried food, force them (* I love to force animals) to look elsewhere. Smell has little to do with anything. *(after all bears don't rely on the sense of smell for almost anything).
While it is quite possible for an experienced woodsman to escape from carrying a can the majority of the time with little if any consequence, how egocentric is this? *(I love ranting about egocentricity because I have almost no ego and don't consider myself to be an expert - I'm MORE than an expert. I'm the ultimate answer)!!
All it takes is one time, bearcan, ursack, or hanging where the bear succeeds and the cycle continues on. *(I know for a FACT it only take ONE TIME).

A fed bear is (soon/destined to be) a dead bear. *(DESTINED)?
Ursacks may work, and well, 98% of the time, but that is still too high *(Obviously more than JUST an opinion) as the few recorded failures only continue the cycle. Bear cans, at least the ones considered legal, have been proven to work better ...Carry the frickin' can. *(all of you must for sure know that when I say fric--- that I really mean business!!!)

For me (Cross Country), personally this commentary by markscor is blatantly anti intellect (something that sets us, apart from the bears).
Sorry that I got so personal here Mark but I really HATE anti intellect.


What?
Gosh Mr. Carter, for someone with zero ego, you sure do like talking about yourself...lots of "I's" there.
BTW, How's that working out for you?
Mountainman who swims with trout
User avatar
markskor
Founding Member & Forums Administrator
Founding Member & Forums Administrator
 
Posts: 2048
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 5:41 pm
Location: Mammoth Lakes
Experience: Level 4 Explorer

User avatar

Re: Them damCan Regs.

Postby mokelumnekid » Mon Sep 12, 2011 8:41 pm

When the regs require a can I carry one, when not I use an Ursack or four (I own a lot, take them all over the world with me where cans aren't available, especially for small varmits). Anyone try 'nesting' Ursacks with the openings opposing? That's what I do. Just a suggestion. Never had a problem, but I know that doesn't prove anything. Cans where required....that's the law. Simple as that. Don't like it then work to change it. I understand longer trips produce special problems, don't know what the answer is there.

In fact the comment period for the new wilderness planning priorities for SEKI just ended. I hope everyone sent in their comments whatever they where.
User avatar
mokelumnekid
Topix Expert
 
Posts: 446
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 4:45 pm
Location: Seattle
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Re: Them damCan Regs.

Postby quentinc » Tue Sep 13, 2011 6:33 pm

The problem with emphasizing that cans are for the protection of the bears is that a lot of people really couldn't care less if bears end up getting shot. And I have to admit I'm one of them, but nonetheless I always carry a canister where they are required and know how to secure my food where they are not. In 25 or so years of backpacking (which includes before canisters), I have never even had a remotely close bear incident.

However, I think a lot of people might just say the heck with it if you tell them the purpose is to protect bears. They'll care, though, if they realize they could get stranded in the back country for days without a crumb left to eat.
User avatar
quentinc
Topix Expert
 
Posts: 890
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2005 10:28 pm
Location: Los Angeles
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Re: Them damCan Regs.

Postby fishmonger » Thu Sep 15, 2011 9:03 am

ERIC wrote:It's a little known fact that any bear canister bearing a HST sticker easily fits most backpacks on the market, carries as much food as you want, and is not just bear resistant but in fact 100% bear proof...


I just upgraded two of my canisters with these sweet stickers! :thumbsup:
User avatar
fishmonger
Topix Expert
 
Posts: 946
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 10:27 am
Location: Madison, WI
Experience: Level 4 Explorer

User avatar

Re: Them damCan Regs.

Postby sparky » Thu Sep 15, 2011 9:29 pm

frediver wrote:I'm trying to fit everything in my Garcia now, I look to be about a day short, 7 in need 8.
A Garcia can just almost maybe works in my G-4 pack, It sure would be nice to have an extra .5-1in in the pack body width.

I just about added an inch of girth to mine, but devised a way to get it secured horizontal...mostly in the pack.....really hard to describe. My sit pad insulates what's exposed. In reality its diagnal, but when secured, the side that's higher simply lays flat as it collapses the nothingness below it. Has to be just right but carries well.

I could care less what you decide to do, but I think a can is the only way to go. Yes the rule is thete because of careless individuals, much like drug laws ect....some say we have a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws.

Just don't lose your damn food.....hanging can be a pain.....
There is a million ways to be human, all are worthwhile.

True happiness is the absence of striving for happiness.
-Chuang Tzu.
User avatar
sparky
Topix Expert
 
Posts: 880
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 10:01 am
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Re: Them damCan Regs.

Postby tightline » Thu Sep 15, 2011 10:43 pm

Back in the day I did A LOT of backpacking without the cans--didn't even know about them really. I had a couple of occasions where I chucked rocks at bears. On one of these occasions (NW Yosemite)these teenage kids came running into our camp, filthy, and screaming that a bears had just torn into their tent, as the kids were cooking in their tent. They were ALL shook up. Right then two bears came trotting up, the kids were screaming-- and my buddy and I stood up and just nailed them with rocks. The bears sprinted off. The kids thought I was Jeremiah Johnson--we thought we were heros. We didn't care about nuthin'---we were in our early 20's, when you think you're invincible. I never gave a second thought to throwing those rocks. We were cooking pancakes at the time too--so what if the bears kept coming on? Then what? Looking back on that situation..well today I would rather have just had the can. Now I would be more scared--although I'd still throw rocks if the situation called for it. I was senseless then but when I think back on it how many senseless people might be sleeping with their food (not knowing any better)when that bear comes investigating--or whatever, instead of just putting stuff in a can and setting it away off. When I first started using the cans (per regulation) I thought it was a joke..but then I realized how handy and convenient they were. No more hanging. No more worrying about whatever sounds outside wondering if they were into your food. They make a good seat....On extended trips-if you are by chance is a position where you have too much food for the can(s), well at least you have a guaranteed whatever days amount of food if you are raided. Personally, just my opinion but I think the extra weight is worth it. And it's a reasonable enough law because of what I related above, as well as other reasons stated.
User avatar
tightline
Topix Acquainted
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2008 7:05 pm
Experience: N/A

PreviousNext

Return to Outdoor Gear Topix



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests