High Sierra Topix

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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 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?

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.

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.

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!